Christmas is just past and New Years is on the way, so we are deep into the holiday season. I hope the holidays have been, and will be, truly joyous ones for all of you. Today is my birthday, which means that I am wedging another celebration into this period. I’ve found it’s nice to dispose of these celebratory distractions all at one time, and to get back to work when the New Year comes. That’s definitely my plan, and I’ll tell you, later this week, about what is likely to be the “hot topic” in Sacramento next year, related to land use policy.

Today, let me make an apology. Maybe it was the distraction of the holidays, or my incipient senility, but I was out of synch by a week, last Monday, when I talked about the activities of the Monterey County Board of Supervisors. I put them in the present tense, when the events had actually happened a week earlier. I do want to apologize for that. Nonetheless, I continue to think that after six years and six million dollars of expense, it’s perfectly legitimate for Monterey County residents to try the “do it yourself” approach with respect to their General Plan.

A link to the proposed General Plan initiative is available on the KUSP website. If the initiative qualifies, and is enacted by the voters, it will place a number of “smart growth” principles into the Monterey County General Plan. This is a real grassroots effort, and I’ve put some information on the website about how you can get personally involved.

For KUSP, this is Gary Patton.

More Information

To sign up to work on the initiative, or find out more, contact Lupe Garcia at LandWatch

Community General Plan
http://www.landwatch.org/pages/pubs05/cgp/index.html

Community General Plan Initiative
http://www.montereycountyfarmbureau.org/General%20Plan/
Community%20General%20Plan%20Initiative%20OCR.pdf

County General Plan Materials

• http://www.co.monterey.ca.us/pbi/gpu/
• http://www.co.monterey.ca.us/pbi/gpu/rpt/
  SRBOSl_PLN050045_Study_12-12-05%20_Misc%20Items_.pdf
• http://www.co.monterey.ca.us/pbi/gpu/rpt/
  Addendum_121205_study_session.pdf

Because it’s my “unhidden agenda” to stimulate listeners to get engaged personally in the land use decision making process, I like to spotlight organizations that are working on land use issues. Where self?]government is involved, individual actions are always appropriate; however, it’s when residents and citizens get together, and “get organized” that they start to have a determinative effect on the decisions that will affect their future. Land use policy decisions do have a very significant impact on the economic, environmental, and social equity concerns that are at the top of everyone’s list of important things to pay attention to. Getting involved with organizations active on land use issues is the best way for an individual to make a difference.

The Environmental Center of San Luis Obispo County, often called “EcoSLO,” helps local residents have an impact on the environmental and environmental health issues that are central in that community. This year, EcoSLO is once again hosting a celebration that they advertise will bring in an “Eco-Clectic” New Year. By attending their New Year’s Eve party, you have a chance for a great celebration, coupled with the ability to help EcoSLO financially, so they can continue their work on land use and other environmental issues. The party will be held at the San Luis Obispo Veteran’s Hall, at 801 Grand Avenue in San Luis Obispo. It begins at 7:00 p.m. on December 31st, and goes past midnight. You can buy your tickets online.

For KUSP, this is Gary Patton.

More Information

EcoSLO Website
http://www.ecoslo.org

On Monday, I promised to tell you about one of the “hot topics” in Sacramento, relating to land use policy. As listeners probably know, my current “day job,” as Executive Director of the Planning and Conservation League, puts me in Sacramento on a daily basis. PCL is working at the national, state and local levels to protect and restore California's natural environment, and to promote and defend the public health and safety of the people of California, through legislative and administrative action, and through litigation when appropriate. In short, PCL lobbies in Sacramento for better environmental laws, and as a “league” of organizations from around California, helps mobilize the efforts of such local groups to affect the actions of the Legislature and the Governor, since these state level actions have such a determinative effect on local environmental struggles.

The current focus of the work of many environmental groups, PCL included, is a proposed “infrastructure bond.” Senate Bill 1024, authored by the President Pro Tem of the Senate, Don Perata, is the current “vehicle,” as they say in Sacramento. The Speaker of the Assembly, however, and the Governor, will have their own proposals, either as separate legislation or as proposed amendments to SB 1024. Tomorrow and Friday, I’ll try to illuminate some of the key issues being discussed. Assembly Member John Laird, as Chair of the Assembly Budget Committee, will be playing an important role.

For KUSP, this is Gary Patton.

More Information

Planning and Conservation League Website
http://www.pcl.org

SB 1024 – Find the bill at
http://www.leginfo.ca.gov

Senate Bill 1024 is a bill that will be passed by the Legislature only if it receives a “two-thirds” vote in both the Assembly and the Senate. In other words, passing this proposed “infrastructure bond” legislation is not going to be either easy or automatic. It might be a particularly hard sell right now because what the bill proposes is borrowing about $10 billion dollars, the repayment of which would become an obligation of the State’s General Fund. This would happen at a time when California has an ongoing, structural deficit. We are not paying for what we are already doing, and are charging our current expenses to what amounts to a statewide “credit card.” SB 1024 would ring up another $10 billion dollars of General Obligation debt. Governor Schwarzenegger has suggested that maybe it might be better to charge $50 billion dollars, instead of just $10 billion, because that bigger amount would fund a lot more projects. Ultimately, of course, the voters will decide, but what, if anything they vote on, is what the debate on SB 1024 will be all about, when the Legislature reconvenes in January.

You can get a link to SB 1024, in its current form, by finding the transcript to today’s Land Use Report on the KUSP website. Be aware, though, that the specifics of SB 1024 may well change, as the Speaker of the Assembly, the Governor, and other interests weigh in on the proposed bond issue.

For KUSP, this is Gary Patton.

More Information

Planning and Conservation League Website
http://www.pcl.org

SB 1024 – Find the bill at
http://www.leginfo.ca.gov

I’ve been talking this week about a proposed “infrastructure bond.” The general idea is that the people of the state should borrow about $10 billion dollars to make investments in “infrastructure” that will strengthen the state’s economy, and deal with important facilities problems that are currently unaddressed. Borrowing money to make sound long term investments in physical facilities, investments that will “pay off” economically, is well-recognized as a legitimate use of borrowing. Borrowing money to pay current expenses (which is what the people of the state are currently doing) is not generally recognized as nearly so legitimate.

Any proposed borrowing needs to be judged both as to the amounts of borrowing suggested, and as to what the expenditures will be used for. Will borrowing the proposed amount of money mean that we will have to cut back on important current expenditures, to repay the bonds? Expenditures like education, law enforcement, and environmental protection are all at risk. Assuming that we do borrow $10 billion dollars or more, what will it be spent for? Will the expenditures be used to fund new sprawl?]inducing highway projects? Will bond funding for “goods movement” facilities increase the already terrible air quality and environmental health conditions in local port communities? It’s possible.

Debating these questions, among many others, is definitely the “hot topic” in Sacramento. Stay tuned for more when the Legislature reconvenes on January 4th.

For KUSP, this is Gary Patton.

More Information

Planning and Conservation League Website
http://www.pcl.org

SB 1024 – Find the bill at
http://www.leginfo.ca.gov